Identifying Hutchinson

[Wickerman]

No argument there.

[Sam Flynn]

Om Toppy Toppy!

Have done this in haste so not sure how well it'll turn out. These are the three signatures from the Hutchinson statement, followed by that of a George Hutchinson from the 1911 census, although he would have been only 18 or 19 at the time of the Kelly murder.

That's George Topping Hutchinson's signature there, if I'm not mistaken. A few years back, I created various collages combining "Ripper" Hutch's signature and those of George Topping ("Toppy") from the latter's 1898 marriage certificate and 1911 census entry. For example, taking the "meat" of the signature ("utchinso") from each of these samples, there are remarkable similarities - even consistencies - from 1888, 1898 and 1911:



Here's some more significant chunks of the signature ("Geo" plus "utchinso"), with dates appended:



Ditto, but zooming in on common "triplets" within forename and surname:



Here are the three signatures in their entirety, with dates alongside:



And, just for jolly, here they are as an animated GIF, melting seamlessly into one another:



These comparisons were more than enough to prove to me that Dorset Street George and George Topping Hutchinson were one and the same. I have not wavered from that conclusion in the intervening years and, on the basis of the evidence, I see no reason to change.

Trust what you can see with your own eyes, and ignore potentially biased interpretations and opinions, my own included. Let the evidence speak for itself.

[Wickerman]

Southwark St George Workhouse, Mint Street, register of vagrants...Oct 22 1885....Ancestry.

George Hutchinson.. aged 30..Groom..was walking about the night before
This could be the watch stealer George Hutchinson. In my opinion this one is a good match for the MJK one.

I can see someone is confusing threads...

[Sam Flynn]

I have very little doubt - practically zero doubt, personally - that "our" George was none other than George Topping Hutchinson. The signatures were enough to convince me.

[Paddy]

George Hutchinson on training ship

I have just located the other George Hutchinson here are the details....

1881 census..
The training ship "Exmouth" at Grays Essex (oops)
George Hutchinson
Pauper
aged 15 (b 1866)
Born Mile End...

Having gone back to the 1881 census I found his mother was Kezia Hutchinsona widow and that he had a brother called Benjamin b1883. Kezia was born in Leytonstone.
So this was not the Groom one I found and being born 1866 I am not sure if he could be the right one. But who knows !

Pat,,,,,,,,

[Paddy]

George Hutchinson?

Southwark St George Workhouse, Mint Street, register of vagrants...Oct 22 1885....Ancestry.

George Hutchinson.. aged 30..Groom..was walking about the night before
This could be the watch stealer George Hutchinson. In my opinion this one is a good match for the MJK one.
There are a few other entrys that could be him.

There is also a record of a very young Geo Hutchinson b1846 being deserted by his parents in the same workhouse dated 1856. It says his parents deserted him and the address given was 17 Gun street, Friar street (Blackfriars) This could fit the following......
Some time back I found a George Hutchinson that was put on the training ship Arethusa. I am not 100% sure but think he was connected to a Keziah Hutchinson and had lived in Southwark at some point. He did have a Whitechapel connection too, if I remember correctly it was his birth place..


Pat.......

[Bridewell]

You might be right about his age, but why would a younger person be hanging around Dorset Street late at night?

Because he wanted to sleep with MJK perhaps?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
While I agree with you to a point, I still think that certain traits in a person's handwriting remain the same.

For example, whenever my 96 year old grandmother writes birthday cards she always begins with a curly 'D' in 'Dear' and finishes with a little zigzag flourish at the end.
This has been significant of her handwriting since she was a young girl, even though some of the other letters look a little different as her writing gets shaky with age.
I've got samples of Cream's handwriting, which are twenty years apart and can very clearly see that his style remains the same in certain letters.

Saying that, if all we have of Hutchinson are signatures, it would take a real expert to decipher which are from the same hand.

Amanda

Hi Amanda.
One of the problems is, some can identify traits between those signatures, and others do not.
A person's signature changes more through the evolving years, like up to 30 years old, or thereabouts. Between 30 and 80 or so, it changes relatively little, assuming no physical disability.

The argument that they look different therefore they cannot be the same man, does not choose to admit the 23 years gap where signatures can change. And, especially if Hutchinson was in his late teens in 1888, then we should expect to see slight changes by 1911, especially in a person who's labours did not require him to sign documents on a daily basis, like a Lawyer, policeman, or Doctor.

[Amanda]

Anyone who doubts that your signature can change over time need only look at their own signature 23 years ago.

That should suffice.

Hi Jon,
While I agree with you to a point, I still think that certain traits in a person's handwriting remain the same.

For example, whenever my 96 year old grandmother writes birthday cards she always begins with a curly 'D' in 'Dear' and finishes with a little zigzag flourish at the end.
This has been significant of her handwriting since she was a young girl, even though some of the other letters look a little different as her writing gets shaky with age.
I've got samples of Cream's handwriting, which are twenty years apart and can very clearly see that his style remains the same in certain letters.

Saying that, if all we have of Hutchinson are signatures, it would take a real expert to decipher which are from the same hand.

Amanda

[Wickerman]

Anyone who doubts that your signature can change over time need only look at their own signature 23 years ago.

That should suffice.

[Bridewell]

Have done this in haste so not sure how well it'll turn out. These are the three signatures from the Hutchinson statement, followed by that of a George Hutchinson from the 1911 census, although he would have been only 18 or 19 at the time of the Kelly murder.

[The Good Michael]

Don't want to make this a Hutch signature thread, but I will clarify some things that have been mis-remembered: Topping Hutchinson claimed to be George Hutchinson. His signatures seem quite close to at least one signature on the statement, or two in many eyes, but yes, one of those two is different in signature structure if not in mechanics. As far as George Hutchinson's signature being categorically dismissed as absolutely not being one of those on the witness statement by an expert, that isn't true as far as I know. Also, we do have another expert who believes that there are enough similarities between at least one of the Hutchinson "signatures" on the statement and Topping Hutchinson's actual signature in the records, that it should be further researched. That has not been done yet, that I know of. It also must be asserted that those few who were so vociferously outspoken against Topping being Hutchinson were people who had the notion that Hutchinson was the killer of Kelly. Those who saw similarities had no stake in anything. Now...yes, that is a fair remembering of what went on. Carry on.

Mike

[lynn cates]

age

Hello All. Let's not forget Hutch's claim about how long he had known Mary. This needs to be factored into ANY age calculation.

Cheers.
LC

[Amanda]

It's apparent he knew Kelly, which makes me think how the papers had got the child situation wrong. Maybe he lived in the area, and stayed at Kelly's because she felt sorry for him. A bit far fetched I know. But not impossible, considering the poverty situation. Otherwise all I can think is that he was just generally hanging around not specifically around Dorset St. Maybe he was pickpocketing, looking for something to eat and ended up there.

Your Hutch's single status is quite interesting as you say. I wouldn't have thought divorce was a popular practice back then. If the wife died then that could explain it.

Hi Natasha,
What if it was more complex than that, maybe Hutchinson was a jealous ex-lover. That would explain her sympathy towards him & perhaps it was a usual occurrence to lend each other a few shillings when the other was broke.

I've found no evidence of a divorce (for this Hutchinson) so wondering if they were just estranged and the wife was nearby.
Amanda

[Natasha]

Hi Natasha,
Not my area I'm afraid, although I know that in the early 1800's children as young as 12 have given evidence in court (younger than that during witch trials over a century before). However, the law could have changed drastically by 1888

I have managed to find a man that I think is a 'new' Hutchinson. Interestingly he married in 1887 but was single a year later. I've sent for the marriage certificate anyway.
You might be right about his age, but why would a younger person be hanging around Dorset Street late at night?
Amanda

It's apparent he knew Kelly, which makes me think how the papers had got the child situation wrong. Maybe he lived in the area, and stayed at Kelly's because she felt sorry for him. A bit far fetched I know. But not impossible, considering the poverty situation. Otherwise all I can think is that he was just generally hanging around not specifically around Dorset St. Maybe he was pickpocketing, looking for something to eat and ended up there.

Your Hutch's single status is quite interesting as you say. I wouldn't have thought divorce was a popular practice back then. If the wife died then that could explain it.